There was a time when "race" and gender weren't protected classes. Should people have waited until they WERE protected in order to protest discrimination?

Seems like putting the horse behind the cart... and then saying you can't put the horse in front until you have agreement from the anti-horse people that it belongs there.

In other words, if WE don't act like a "protected class" how are we ever going to convince anyone else that we should be?

Obviously the idea of protected classes didn't exist prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so the civil rights movement didn't even have that to shoot for at the time. The concept and the protections it afford are now established. I think that the issue of gun ownership as a protected class is separate from the thread topic, though would certainly generate interesting discussion.

And to be clear, I am not arguing that the University's decision should be ignored and not protested. I'm merely stating that the types of comments made should be more aware of the image it will present. Conflating the horrors people lived under during Jim Crow with the inconvenience someone who is 21 years old and choosing to still live in the dorms while keeping firearms are such dramatic magnitudes of scale different that it is ridiculous.

Image is everything. If the average person's reaction to a comment is to roll their eyes and walk away, you've lost regardless of whether your argument is valid. Again, I'm taking about the average person, not staunch gun grabbers. They aren't the ones we need or even could reason with.

Hazborgufen, would you object if your landlord told you that you could only live in the corner apartment, if you had a FOID card? That's essentially the case here.

The corner apartment might be the more sought after unit, so that sounds like a privilege.

I get what you are going for though, and if a landlord did try to regulate where I could live based on my choice to own firearms that I would store on the premises, then of course I would raise a stink. Indeed I've done similar with regard to the tedious regulations contained in Chicago's firearm ordinance.

I would not compare my plight to the struggles of African Americans under segregation though. I've got more sense than that.

Anyone making a "back of the bus" comment or comparing this to lunch counter segregation is clearly dense or didn't read the article. This isn't some kind of Jim Crow law against CCW holders and nobody is going to be the next Rosa Parks or of gun rights here. Don't be minimizing the accomplishments of the civil rights movement by trying to compare this story to it.

First: Welcome to the board.

Second: I posted this article, I did read it in it's entirety, and I do read for comprehension. No problem there. Not dense either.

Third: Forced segregation at any level legitimizes forced segregation at every level.

Fourth: You obviously missed the point in the comment and the sarcasm with which it was posted. Perhaps I should have entered a few smilies to indicate that.

Oh, well, better late than never ...

Fifth: Please read THIS ARTICLE by Clayton Cramer which is more than familiar to nearly everyone on this board.

We aren't the first to be treated this way. We are merely the most recent.

__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

You are sooooo right. I live 12 miles from Boulder and that's as close as I want to get. You can smell the political correctness from here.

These are the people who elected one of their mayors because she had cancer; tried to get prairie dogs placed on the endangered species list; invited the homeless because they discovered they didn't have any; wanted people to distinguish the difference between the "good" and "bad" mosquitoes before swatting them; wanted to mount sensors on everyone's cars who lived there to monitor their vehicle use; ordered the trash companies to operate separate trash trucks for recyclables and trash instead of using one truck for separating both. The list goes on, and on, and on ...

__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

To the average person, seeing comments saying that only allowing guns in specific dorms is akin to segregated lunch counters comes off as lunacy, particularly since "gun owner" isn't a protected class.

The right to arms pre-existed all other protected classes. Every citizen of the United States of America has the right to keep and bear arms; and that was finally codified as an individual right in Heller, although it was never otherwise. That was a pipe dream of the anti-firearms contingent.

Just this nonsensical lunatic's opinion.

__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

I just talked to a few college kids,,,
Easy for me to do as I work in a university computer lab.

One young lady said she would definitely not want to share a room with a gun owner.

Another young lady said "Only if I knew the person."

One young man said "No way would I let them pair me with a gun owner.

One young man said "I would be the gun owner and I would not want to be separated out."

The lasy young man said "I don't think I would care if my roomie carried a gun."

No consensus at all from 5 random college kids.

I honestly don't know where I stand on this,,,
If I were a college administrator I don't think I could look at one student and tell them they have no choice but to abide with their roomie owning, storing, and carrying a gun in their shared room.

In a shared dorm building is one thing,,,
But in your personal living space is another thing altogether.

Color me undecided,,,

Aarond

.

__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond!(most of the time)

No reason you couldn't pair up gunowners with gunowners (or gunowners with folks indifferent to gun ownership) without exiling them to off-campus quarters, and then imposing onerous restrictions upon when and where they may carry. They're even proposing to dictate extralegal storage requirements for students who aren't even living on campus.

These regulations are a spiteful slap at student gunowners by churlish administrators still seething at losing in court.

Question - who sets up security for this place? if it's a typical dorm, with back door propped open for party hounds, and cheesy door locks, I might not want to live there, since the college advertised to the world this is where guns can be stolen. It's not on campus, so it's only security will be regular local PD, right, or will they have campus cops check it out occasionally?
I understand both sides, yes, it's a sort of move in the right direction, with a lot of segregation against one of the two classes of people who can legally be discriminated against - gun owners and smokers. I can see lawsuits from both sides, for many reasons.
If I lived there, my carry pistol would be inexpensive, and I'd have to buy some sort of decent safe/security system for it, since I cannot take it into a class room, did I read that correctly?
The last question, are students who are identified as CCW permit holders, (do they have to sew a yellow felt pistol shaped cloth to their shirts?), are they restricted from attending functions such as athletic events, or are they just cautioned not to bring their sidearms, as no firearms are allowed into these events, by anyone? If it's the latter, that's not discrimination against the students per se. If they are refused admittance to various buildings or events simply because they have CCW permits, or are subjected to constant searches of self and belongings, then we have grounds for action...I would think. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

The CCW folks would not be barred from attending athletic or cultural events, but would be prohibited from carrying. In fact, the concealed weapon is largely rendered a nullity for students, since about 90 percent of their daily activities would require them to enter a gun-free zone.

I thought it was bad the way Chicago thumbed its nose at the courts changing their laws in a way as to not be in contempt of court but as to simply kick the can down the road to the next lawsuit. This IS some sort of progress but it seems that it can/will be challenged on many levels.

Interesting because in Kansas somebody would be going to jail, since it is illegal for any state offical, personel, or agency to release any records that ID a person as a CCW holder, unless it is by warrant, for offical police investigation. Wonder who the custodian of records in Colorado is and what the law says about releasing those records.

Fourth: You obviously missed the point in the comment and the sarcasm with which it was posted. Perhaps I should have entered a few smilies to indicate that.

Oh, well, better late than never ...

Perhaps I did miss the sarcasm, so I will thank you for the welcome and apologize for jumping to conclusions.

I'm relieved to see that the comments were made in jest. I'm clearly a bit frazzled by the environment in Chicago. Reveal that you are pro gun in some areas and people will treat you differently. To a lot of people, guns are scary weapons used by bad people to do evil things. The idea of gun ownership is foreign to them and their perceptions of gun owners is negative. So I may be over zealous in my effort to polish the image of gun ownership. Anyway, I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

Three cheers to Don. The latest few generations in this country have intentionally been taught to misunderstand the difference between "illegal" and "criminalized." In essence, even in the early 1800s very little was illegal, whether it be drugs, alcohol, firearms or even explosives. Over the years politicians gradually criminalized many of these things. The reversal of those actions ("laws) is "decriminalization," not "legalization."

Sound trivial? It is not. I spend a lot of time practicing this wording with my children and theirs.

Perhaps I did miss the sarcasm, so I will thank you for the welcome and apologize for jumping to conclusions.

No harm. No foul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hazborgufen

I'm relieved to see that the comments were made in jest. I'm clearly a bit frazzled by the environment in Chicago. Reveal that you are pro gun in some areas and people will treat you differently. To a lot of people, guns are scary weapons used by bad people to do evil things. The idea of gun ownership is foreign to them and their perceptions of gun owners is negative. So I may be over zealous in my effort to polish the image of gun ownership. Anyway, I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

Chicago criminals gave us the NFA34 because of their antics. The corruption never left that city so everyone who lives there is wary. Firearms are just part of the equation.

The best thing to "polish the image of gun ownership" is respectful, dispassionate, knowledgeable debate.

__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

They will be segregated from the rest of the student body. All other dorms will be declared off limits to firearms and CCW licensees.

That isn't what the article said. The other dorms are not off limits to licensees. They can go there, but aren't allowed to reside there.

Quote:

There was a time when "race" and gender weren't protected classes. Should people have waited until they WERE protected in order to protest discrimination?

Seems like putting the horse behind the cart... and then saying you can't put the horse in front until you have agreement from the anti-horse people that it belongs there.

In other words, if WE don't act like a "protected class" how are we ever going to convince anyone else that we should be?

What other "classes" of people do we have that are protected under law that are defined by behavior? Race and gender are not behaviors.

If we act like a protected class, then why will people we wish to convince that we are a protected class do anything to help us become a protected class since we already appear to be?

__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

What other "classes" of people do we have that are protected under law that are defined by behavior? Race and gender are not behaviors.

I think what he meant was, in short, if we continue to sit in the back of the bus then it will be difficult to ever convince anyone that making us sit in the back is wrong. Not that it's that severe of course, but you understand my allusion.

What other "classes" of people do we have that are protected under law that are defined by behavior? Race and gender are not behaviors.

Actually, the first "protected class" ever defined by the US Supremes based on the 14th Amendment was US citizens of one state travelling to other states - there is a blanket ban on discriminating against them on that basis. See also Ward v. Maryland 1870 (still valid case law) and Saenz v. Roe 1999 which re-iterated what Ward said.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.